The Return of the King

As Marissa (our newest member) just stated in her first post, I got her to watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy over our winter break. When Webber heard about this, he began to talk about the books, and I was barely able to hide the fact that I had only read the first one. After having pressured my girlfriend to watch the movies, it only seemed right for me to finally finish the books. I finally did do today. If you read my Two Towers recap, you may recall that I found the movies to be pretty loyal to the books with a few exceptions. For the most part, these exceptions were timing, pacing, and story structure. The same is true this time around. Once again the action is heavily segmented. First we see what Aragorn and company have been up to, and then we cut abruptly to Frodo and Sam as they approach the Cracks of Doom. The movies certainly did a better job with parallel storytelling. It's also noteworthy that the final quarter of this book was almost entirely omitted from the film version. In fact, the ring gets destroyed with six whole chapters (of nineteen) still remaining. I mean, I was among those who scoffed at Peter Jackson for "dragging out" the ending of the movie for so long, but it sounds like he easily could have thrown another hour in there. One thing does confuse me, though, now that I've read all three parts of Tolkien's epic. In the middle of the second movie, for about ten or fifteen minutes, Jackson focuses on Aragorn and Liv Tyler the elf lady's love story. It was the most boring fifteen minutes of the ten-hour trilogy! And there was actually nothing like it in the books at all. It just seems weird to me that, out of every possible "creative liberty" to take with the films, Peter Jackson chose to bore us with superfluous romantic scenes. Speaking of romance, no review of this book would be complete without pointing out the "gay as hell by today's standards" dynamic shared by Frodo and Sam. I understand that Tolkien wanted to depict a deep companionship between the two, but did they have to kiss each other's foreheads and hands as often as they did? I'm no homophobe, and none of this offended me in any way; it just seemed very out of place in an epic tale about two guys saving the world. Why not just have them share stories and dreams with each other? Wouldn't that have connoted camaraderie much more effectively than having them hold hands when they went to sleep? I know the fifties were a different time, but man. Anyway, I suppose now it's time for me to wrap this up by comparing all three books to each other and the books in general to the films. The former task is impossible. I know it's a slight cop out on my part not to have a favorite book, but really, The Lord of the Rings was never meat to be three separate books at all. Tolkien wrote one massive tale and only split it up into three sections when his publishers told him he needed to do so (there was a paper shortage at the time or something). Thus, picking a favorite LotR book is like choosing which third of a movie you liked best; of course the beginning will be slower but more character-based, the middle part will be the most plot-driven, and the conclusion will have the best parts but also winds down to provide an ending. The same applied here. I will say, though, that this is a rare example of movies being better than the books they were based on. Purists may argue, but this isn't their blog. All in all, the Lord of the Rings series is not must-read material, but it's entertaining and classic enough to give you a reason to check it out. The series is, however, a must-watch trilogy of films. Just ask Marissa, who was a staunch opponent of the series just a few weeks ago.